[infinispan-dev] changes introduced by optimistic transactions

[Mircea Markus]

On 1 Aug 2011, at 17:36, Sanne Grinovero wrote:

> Hi Mircea,
> what you propose has a strong impact on existing use cases.
> 
> Not having batching kills the Lucene performance, and using
> transactions is not an option unless the whole state of the index can
> fit in memory, which is not the use case we're targeting: I need to be
> able to use both on the same Cache.
So you access the cache in two ways:
- through batching api and
- directly, outside the scope of a transaction
Am I correct?
> 
> Isn't it possible to have a batching implementation which doesn't rely
> on transactions, or why are you needing to add this limitation?
Supporting a mixed way of accessing the cache might cause problems [1] (thanks to Paolo R. for this paper) and is also not consistent with the JSR 107's way of doing things, which doesn't go for  mixed cache.
I'd like to get a better grasp of your use case and let's catch up from there. IRC?
[1] http://www.cis.upenn.edu/acg/papers/cal06_atomic_semantics.pdf

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/attachments/20110802/d73f6f81/attachment.html